It’s a common frustration for many Americans: public transportation often feels inadequate, unreliable, and inconvenient, especially when compared to systems in other wealthy nations. The United States invests a significant amount of taxpayer money into its public transportation systems, yet buses, subways, and light rail in America consistently lag behind their European and Asian counterparts in ridership, service frequency, and operational hours. Wait times are longer, routes are less comprehensive, and overall, the experience often falls short of expectations. Paradoxically, a larger portion of the funding for American public transit comes from public subsidies compared to many other countries.
This creates a perplexing situation: we, as a nation, are spending substantially on public transportation, but receiving comparatively less in terms of quality and effectiveness. It’s essentially the worst of both worlds – high investment with underwhelming returns.
Many explanations for this paradox point to America’s unique development history and sprawling geography. The argument goes that because many US cities expanded significantly after the rise of the automobile in the 1950s, they became car-centric by design. This sprawling urban layout, it’s argued, makes efficient and effective public transportation inherently difficult.
However, this explanation falters when we consider Canada. Canada, too, is a vast, geographically diverse nation with cities largely developed in the automobile era. Yet, Canadian cities boast public transportation systems that are markedly superior to those in the US.
Jarrett Walker, a renowned public transit consultant, highlights this disparity: “Canada just has more public transit,” he states. “Compare, for example, Portland to Vancouver, or Salt Lake City to Edmonton, or Des Moines to Winnipeg. These are cities with similar cultural and economic profiles, but in each comparison, the Canadian city provides two to five times more public transit service per capita, resulting in correspondingly higher ridership rates.”
Comparison of Public Transit Trips Per Capita in Canadian and American Cities of Similar Size, highlighting Canada's higher ridership.
While suburban sprawl and car-dependent infrastructure undoubtedly contribute to the challenges faced by American Public Transportation, they are not the sole, or even primary, culprits. A deeper, more systemic issue lies in how public transportation is perceived and treated in the United States compared to other developed nations. In Europe, Asia, and Canada, public transportation is generally viewed as a vital public utility, essential for the functioning of society and the economy. In contrast, in the US, a significant portion of policymakers and the public often perceive transit primarily as a social welfare program.
Suburban Sprawl: An Incomplete Picture
The visual contrast between a dense European city with a thriving public transit system and a sprawling American metropolis can be striking. It’s easy to assume that America’s car-centric urban development is the root of its public transportation woes.
Typical suburban landscape in the US, illustrating car-dependent infrastructure and low density.
There’s certainly some truth to this. Many American cities, particularly outside the older Northeastern and Midwestern regions, grew rapidly during the age of the automobile. Their design often prioritizes cars, featuring low-density suburbs, winding roads, and cul-de-sacs, rather than the grid-like street patterns and higher densities that are more conducive to public transit.
Serving a population spread thinly across a large area inevitably increases the cost and complexity of providing efficient public transportation. Rail and bus lines become more expensive to operate per capita when serving sprawling areas. Furthermore, the very design of car-centric suburbs, with their winding streets and lack of pedestrian-friendly pathways, often makes accessing bus stops and train stations on foot a challenge.
Street grid comparison showing the walkability difference between a traditional grid layout and a suburban cul-de-sac layout.
The fact that older US cities with pre-war street grids, such as New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago, boast the highest public transit ridership rates in the country appears to support the sprawl argument. However, focusing solely on urban form overlooks crucial historical and policy decisions that have shaped American public transportation.
Historical Divergence: Missed Opportunities in Transit Development
Looking back at transportation history reveals that the post-1950s suburban development alone didn’t predetermine the fate of American public transit. In the mid-20th century, many developed nations, including the US, Canada, France, the UK, Germany, and Australia, were all experiencing increasing automobile adoption and suburbanization.
“If you looked at the United States, Canada, France, the UK, Germany, and Australia, in the 1950s, they were all on the same trajectory — they were all racing toward automobile dependence,” explains David King, a professor of urban planning at Columbia University. “But then in the 1960s, you start to see a divergence.”
During this pivotal decade, many European cities made deliberate efforts to preserve and expand their existing public transit networks, adapting them to serve growing suburban areas. Similarly, many newer Canadian cities invested in robust light rail systems and high-quality bus services even as they accommodated automobile traffic. These strategic investments ensured that these regions maintained significantly higher levels of public transit usage compared to similarly sized and dense US cities.
Toronto's Go Train, representing Canada's investment in suburban rail transit.
In contrast, newer American cities in the West and South expanded rapidly with far less corresponding investment in public transportation infrastructure. Even some of the older, established US cities, which had inherited well-planned pre-automobile urban layouts, actively dismantled their existing transit systems. Streetcar lines were ripped out in favor of buses, and massive highway projects were undertaken to prioritize suburban commutes by car.
Downtown Detroit in 1951, showing a thriving urban center with streetcars.
Downtown Detroit in 2010, reflecting urban decline and car-dominated infrastructure.
Transit blogger Alon Levy points to the example of Boston: “In 1912, Boston had this great public transit system, with four subway lines and streetcars that fed it,” he notes. “Then they spent the next 60 or 70 years destroying it.” This pattern of disinvestment and dismantling of existing infrastructure contributed significantly to the decline of American public transportation.
The Welfare Mindset: A Hindrance to Quality Transit
A key turning point in the divergence between the US and Europe was the municipal takeover of private streetcar and bus companies in many American cities during the 1950s. These private companies were facing financial difficulties due to a combination of factors. Contractual restrictions prevented them from raising fares, while they were still responsible for road maintenance. Simultaneously, increasing car traffic slowed down streetcar service, making them less appealing and efficient.
Decommissioned streetcars awaiting destruction in Los Angeles in 1956, symbolizing the decline of streetcar systems.
As transportation historian Peter Norton explained, “Once just 10 percent or so of people were driving, the tracks were so crowded that [the streetcars] weren’t making their schedules.” When cities took over these struggling companies, the prevailing rationale was to maintain these services as a form of social welfare, primarily for those who could not afford to own and operate a car.
This perception of public transit as a welfare service, rather than a vital public utility, has persisted outside of a few major cities like New York and Washington, D.C. Many local politicians and decision-makers continue to view transit primarily as a government aid program for low-income, carless individuals.
This “welfare mentality” has led to a paradoxical situation. On one hand, it has resulted in significant public subsidies for transit systems. In most US cities, passenger fares cover only 30 to 40 percent of operating costs, a lower percentage than in many cities worldwide. However, the downside is that this perception discourages transit agencies from charging fares high enough to fund efficient and high-quality service. Effectively, it limits the appeal of public transit to only those who have no other option.
“Transit in the US is caught in a vicious cycle,” argues King. “We push for low fares for social reasons, but that starves the transit agency, which leads to reduced service.” This echoes the challenges faced by the private streetcar companies decades ago. This underfunding and subsequent service reduction directly contribute to the limited operating hours and infrequent service that plague many US bus and rail systems, even those with extensive networks.
Alon Levy further elaborates, “It’s considered okay if the bus comes every half hour if it’s a lifeline for people who literally can’t afford anything else.” This infrequent service is often acceptable when transit is seen merely as a safety net, but it fails to attract riders who have the choice to drive, thus perpetuating the cycle of low ridership and underfunding.
A lone person waiting at an empty bus stop, representing the often-inconvenient and underutilized nature of US public transportation.
This situation is not inevitable. Transit systems in cities like London and Toronto demonstrate that higher fares combined with frequent and reliable service can make public transportation an attractive option even for car owners. The recent emergence of microtransit initiatives in the US, such as Chariot and Bridj (though Bridj is no longer operating), which offer more reliable express bus services at fares of $5 to $8, suggests a potential shift in this direction.
Other cities around the world have successfully navigated the balance between affordability and quality service. Paris, for example, legally mandates each municipality to cover the gap between transit fares and operating costs, enabling the transit agency to prioritize efficient service while maintaining relatively affordable fares. Cities like Seattle have experimented with reduced fares for low-income commuters, ensuring accessibility without compromising the overall financial health of the transit system.
Political Landscape: Systemic Bias Against Public Transit
Beyond the welfare perception, the American political system itself contributes to the underinvestment in public transportation. Because transit is often framed as a social program, securing funding for mass transit projects has become a politically contentious issue. Conservative political factions are often reluctant to allocate resources to what they perceive as a social program benefiting primarily urban, and often lower-income, populations.
The US Capitol Building, symbolizing the political processes that influence public transportation funding and policy.
This level of political polarization around transit investment is less pronounced in other countries. While debates about transit spending exist in Canada and Europe, politicians across the political spectrum are generally more supportive of public transportation. It is often treated as a bipartisan issue, similar to road construction in the US. As Levy points out, “It’s just not as politically controversial to build public transit elsewhere. The left tends to be more pro-transit than the right, but they both ultimately support it.”
Furthermore, structural aspects of American governance exacerbate the anti-transit bias. The federal government plays a significant role in shaping transportation policy. The US Senate’s composition often leads to federal policies that disproportionately favor rural interests over urban priorities. This bias manifests in various ways, from the historical emphasis on highway construction at the expense of urban neighborhoods, a policy driven by the Department of Commerce and implemented by the Department of Transportation, to current funding allocations. In contrast, Canada lacks a national transportation department with similar influence, granting regional bodies greater autonomy in transportation planning.
Even seemingly minor factors, like the location of state capitals, can have an impact. In Australia, state capitals are also the major cities, ensuring that state-level funding decisions often align with the transportation needs of the most populous urban centers. Conversely, in states like New York or Illinois, state lawmakers in Albany and Springfield may have less direct exposure to and understanding of the importance of robust public transit in major metropolitan areas like New York City and Chicago.
Pathways to Progress: Improving American Public Transit
Despite the challenges, there is potential for positive change in American public transportation. Experts emphasize that improving service frequency and reliability are the most critical factors in attracting riders. As Jarrett King states, “In attracting riders to transit, frequency is the biggest thing, followed very closely by reliability. If you don’t have those, people won’t trust the system.”
Los Angeles Metro Expo Line, representing ongoing efforts to expand and modernize public transportation in US cities.
Encouragingly, other countries have often enhanced both frequency and reliability without necessarily increasing overall spending, primarily through operational improvements and strategic prioritization. However, the welfare-oriented perception of transit in the US has often hindered the implementation of such innovative, cost-neutral changes.
For example, bus stops in the US are often spaced much closer together compared to international standards. Increasing stop spacing can significantly improve bus speeds and service frequency, but it faces political resistance due to concerns about accessibility for seniors and disabled riders. However, European cities demonstrate that wider stop spacing, coupled with more frequent and reliable bus service, can actually increase ridership among all demographics, including seniors and disabled individuals, because the overall system becomes more convenient and user-friendly.
Other cost-effective improvements include optimizing bus routes to facilitate seamless transfers between different parts of a city, rather than forcing all routes to converge downtown. Prioritizing increased service in densely populated areas, even if it means reducing the total number of stops in less populated areas, can also significantly enhance the effectiveness of the system.
Despite the historical headwinds, there are signs of progress. US transit ridership has shown a gradual upward trend in recent years, albeit still lagging behind European and Canadian levels. Furthermore, there is growing optimism among experts that transit agencies are becoming more receptive to innovative approaches. Houston’s 2015 bus system redesign, inspired by Jarrett Walker’s recommendations, which shifted away from a downtown-centric model and improved suburb-to-suburb connectivity, serves as a promising example of positive change.
Correction: This article previously stated that the Department of Transportation laid out the routes for US urban highways. They were designed by the Department of Commerce, and implemented by the Department of Transportation after it became its own agency.
VIDEO: 220 years of population shifts in one map
Larger cities generally have higher transit use — but this chart shows that Canadian cities (in green) have much higher public transit (PT) trips per capita than American cities (purple) of the same size. (Ian Wallis Associates)
See More:
